Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

Time to revisit Gillick?

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Anna Raccoon on August 17, 2015

Medieval schoolgirls had to hunt their own contraceptives…

Way back in the mists of time, when the Labour party was merely middle aged, Jeremy Corbyn was still wearing short trousers, and no one knew that veering to the left could cause electile dysfunction in a Labour member, Gregory Pincus started working on a product that would revolutionise women’s lives in a way that the medieval woman, tying weasel testicles to her thighs (no, really) could never have imagined.

By 1965, almost 6.5 million American women were on ‘The Pill’, the oral contraceptive’s endearingly discrete nickname, which is thought to have stemmed from women requesting it from their doctors as discreetly as possible.

‘Women’ was acknowledged as meaning females not only over the age of consent, but married – to a man. A bygone age indeed. The pill arrived in London in 1961, and the same strictures applied. It was not a means of allowing all women to have sex without fear of pregnancy, but to allow married women to ‘limit their family’ as the quaint phrase went. No husband, no pill. Curtain rings were popular items of jewellery for a while, but you still needed a man brave enough to face the inquisition at the clinic and swear he was married to you, however unlikely that might have appeared.

By 1980, a mere 19 years later, the ‘right’ of every female to have the pill was so universally acknowledged, that Victoria Gillick began her campaign against the practice of Doctors at the time, to prescribe the pill to those below the age of consent, without the need for parental permission or knowledge. At the time, Victoria was viewed as being a younger, but more prudish, version of Mary Whitehouse. Note, even then, the view was not that those under the age of 16 shouldn’t have access to contraception, but that parents should be told and should have the final say in whether contraception was prescribed.

Counsel for Mrs Gillick, Mr Gerard Wright QC, had argued that the act of giving contraceptive advice or treatment was ‘very close’ to the criminal offence of aiding and abetting unlawful sexual intercourse. Which it undoubtedly was – however, Mr Justice Woolf said: I would regard the pill prescribed to the woman as not so much the ‘instrument for a crime or anything essential to its commission,’ but a palliative against the consequences of the crime.

Note the use of the word ‘woman’. Mr Justice Woolf was talking about a female under 16 that we now know as a ‘child’. The matter went to the House of Lords.

The House of Lords focused on the issue of consent rather than a notion of ‘parental rights’ or parental powers. In fact, the court held that ‘parental rights’ did not exist, other than to safeguard. The majority held that in some circumstances a minor could consent to treatment, and that in these circumstances a parent had no power to veto treatment.

The phrase ‘Gillick competence’ came into common use as a result of this case. It meant, in simple English, that provided a person under the age of consent was able to understand the risks involved, and take appropriate advice, was intent on having sexual intercourse, and didn’t wish their parents to be informed, then it was right and proper that a Doctor should be able to prescribe them contraception. This ruling was later taken to refer to abortion also.

So we have a ridiculous situation where the competence to make a decision as to whether to engage in sex is made on a case by case basis, assessing the maturity of the young person involved, prior to a sexual act – with contraception, and after a sexual act – by agreeing to abort, yet any discussion regarding the age of consent, whether upwards or downwards, is greeted with total hysteria. According to those who indulge in this hysteria, all young people magically and simultaneously mature on the very day of their 16th birthday.

Barrister Barbara Hewson had the misfortune to raise the question of having a debate on the age of consent in the middle of the Savile hysteria, pointing out that it was over 100 years since we had discussed the matter, and that girls matured physically much earlier today than they did in 1895; as such, she has been the subject of an ongoing cyber bullying campaign – even though she is by no means the only person to suggest this debate.

Six months later, Professor John Ashton, President of the Facility of Public Health, said society had to accept that a third of all children were having sex at 14 or 15. He believed a debate was necessary about lowering the age of consent to 15. Six months before Ms Hewson spoke out, civil servants had put together a proposal to lower the age of consent to 14, but the Prime Minister, invoking the spirit of Queen Victoria, ‘had been appalled’ to discover that lowering the age of consent had ‘ever’ been considered. He presumably would have an attack of the vapours to learn that it was once 13 in this country.

So far as I am aware, there has been no campaign to force either Professor Ashton or the Downing Street civil servants out of office – nor are there mass demonstrations outside GPs surgeries – GPs have prescribed contraceptives to 75,000 under age girls in the last year, and no one knows how many contraceptives have been prescribed by school nurses or sexual health clinics to those who are, legally, sexually abused children.

Yet the focus of #CSA activism is on abuses said to be carried out (preferably by either a politician or someone employed by a well funded organisation) 30 and 40 years ago. They react with utter fury, well co-ordinated fury, to any suggestion that their story might not be believable, albeit devoid of corroboration, but none of them ever mention the child abuse being carried out daily by ‘someone’ on those tens of thousands of girls who come forward to their Doctor, admitting that they are being, or intend to be, so abused and requesting contraception. There are no extensive police inquiries being carried out as to who is abusing them. Nor is anyone remotely concerned when they return to the Doctor and demand an abortion – an abortion that will doubtless contain DNA evidence leading to a perpetrator.

Instead of which, we have the ridiculous spectacle of Police forces appealing for victims in respect of ‘crimes’ they have been told by activists ‘might’ have occurred 40 years ago, if only they had a victim…’pretty please would a victim come forward’?

It really is time to have a sensible debate without all the hair pulling. We need a version of Gillick competence to engage in sexual activity – or perhaps a bar on those who have been declared Gillick competent being able to bring a court case at a later date in respect of that abuse?

A now aging pop star said that in his heyday none of the pop idols asked for birth certificates from their compliant fans. Also the offence of having sex with an underage girl is ‘Unlawful Intercourse with a child under 16’. Unlawful intercourse is defined as ‘ intercourse outside the bonds of matrimony’. Therefor any man bringing his wife from a country where the law permits a girl to marry under the age of 16 can carry on bonking without the fear of Mr Plod, and the Courts, or even the dreaded Social Services, interfering.

Not in Rotherham, where they are busily closing every stable door in sight…

Girls as young as 12 are being married off in the Roma community living in scandal-hit Rotherham. The revelation comes after government commissioners took over the council in the town, where more than 1,400 schoolgirls were abused by sex gangs.

Emma Hoddinott, former deputy leader, told a council meeting: “Underage marriage is an issue and we have to tackle that. We can’t write off those girls because they are in that community.”

After the meeting, councillor Martyn Parker claimed the town had up to 7,500 Roma and said young girls arrived from Eastern Europe already married. He said: “Just because a child is allowed to marry at the age of 12 or 13 in another country doesn’t mean we have to change our laws .” (Mirror)

* Barrister Barbara Hewson had the misfortune to raise the question of having a debate on the age of consent in the middle of the Savile hysteria, pointing out that it was over 100 years since we had discussed the matter, and that girls matured physically much earlier today than they did in 1895; as such, she has been the subject of an ongoing cyber bullying campaign – even though she is by no means the only person to suggest this debate. *

Actually, here in the States, the age of consent seems to be 21 in most states for having a glass of wine or buying a pack of cigarettes (although I believe in some States they are trying to raise it to 23 on the basis that the children of just 21 or 22 will share their cigarettes, like candy, with younger toddlers having their nappies changed at the local colleges or military training camps.)

Actually, as a bicycle activist, I’d like to apply for an MSA style grant of, oh, say just 500 million a year (I don’t need a whole 900 million!) and have it given to me for just 15 years or so, and I’ll bet I could get the minimum driving age raised to 25! Whoever decided to put children too young to drink, smoke, or have sex behind the wheel of 3,000 pound DeathMobiles must have been truly insane.

Yes, there’d be resistance at first from the auto-addicted, all sorts of screaming and moaning and whining and pining, but after a while, with the proper blend of positive and negative behavioral and cognitive conditioning it would become embraced and lauded as the greatest social advancement of the 21st Century! Big Car and Big Oil and Big Tire Rubber would all fight it of course (Here in the States that threesome actually formed a “holding company” in the 1920s and proceeded to buy and tear up the light rail trolley systems in more than half of our major cities. They were eventually found guilty in court and forced to pay a fine for this destruction: $5,000. Yes, you read that correctly.)

Triple the price of gasoline with taxes, put stop signs and speed bumps at every intersection, reduce the number of gas stations in a city to just 1 per 100,000 residents so it would be less convenient to “just stop off for a couple of gallons” on the way home, and get rid of product placement on TV and in the movies! In over 200 hours of programming, the American Medical Drama BONES showed people drinking well over 2000 drinks of alcohol. In that same programming they showed only eight puffs from a cigarette or cigar (with three of the eight being an outdoor scene where the nonsmokers choked while walking by the deadly cloud.) There’s no more need for cars in the video media than there is for smoke. Just as millions thrill to the Tour De France, hundreds of millions will thrill to exciting on-screen bicycle pursuits with angry cops and terrified bad guys fleeing and chasing on their sporty 10-speeds! The NHS will benefit greatly as well: as any ER nurse how many car accident victims take up needed facilities in hospitals. Perhaps, as that nurse once said about smokers, if the auto-addicts won’t give up their car keys before getting wheeled in to have their legs sewn back on, well, “They’ll just have to die.”

Yep… 25 sounds like a perfect age of consent for all these things.

Oh! Except masturbation! No masturbation until age 30 because it makes children feeble-minded!

I thought masturbation made you go blind, so it should be encouraged at a very early age, and thus the crime of looking at illegal imagery would be resolved at source, as would the non-crime of reading books all about it.http://www.bangzo.com/ebayimages/cathyglassnew.jpg Unless, like me you found you were genetically immune to all of this 21st century disease…

My dad used to have a contraption called a moped to go to and from work. You had to “cycle” it to get the tiny engine going, and if you ran out of petrol you could in fact cycle it just like a bicycle, until you found fresh supply. During the oil crisis of the 70’s it became a heavy bicycle, but since we lived in a flat area, it remained a practical means of personal transportation. Bring back the moped I say. It should keep everyone happy and combat the obesity crisis to boot.

Back in the early 70s, I was an early trader in personalised number plates, long before ‘Retention Certficates’, when you had to keep any ‘stock’ on live vehicles. For this purpose I kept a moped, a ‘Norman Nippy’ with a Villiers engine and pedals – it was truly dreadful. But it served the purpose and held about a dozen different registrations over a year or so, then the DVLC changed the rules so you couldn’t transfer between taxation classes (car to bike, or bike to car etc), so I scrapped it – a major contribution to mankind. With all those registration changes, its old green Log Book had more crossings-out than even the much-awaited Chilcott Report will have (eventually).

You said it all, that you are a bicycle activist. That probably means that you are a vegetarian (like Hitler) and don’t drive yourself (oh, like Hitler again). You disapprove of alcohol? Now who does that remind me of? Christ-on-a-bike, it’s Hitler again! And tax raised three times? Holy shit, do you want to give the Government all that extra money to piss up the wall? What will they do with it (Hint: go to war somewhere, like … Oh God, who was it I was just thinking of?*)

One prays that the 3,000 pound DeathMobile driven by a drugged up, pissed, under-age maniac is lurking near your favourite route, just waiting for you to jump a red light, swerve, cycle up the inside of a lorry signalling left, hurtle down the footway scattering pedestrians to left and right, failing to stop at pedestrian crossings, cycle on an unlit road without lights, or cycle down a one way street the wrong way. Because as an activist, you won’t be wearing a helmet or easy to see clothing, will you?

Fortunately, the pounding your testicles take while riding your bike saves the rest of us dependent on our cars the effort of seeking you out and kicking the living shit out of them.

Presumably they could go back to the 1970’s future and pack a “Saturday Night Special” in their handbags as well, thus resolving the “rape crisis”, all at one and the same time. It’s these sorts of efficiencies that modern justice is in need of.

Cyclists can be a pest. We suffer invasions of lycra clad fascists who think that because there’s a bike shop next door they can park their cars & vans in our bowling club car park, take it over to assemble & test their ironmongery, then clear off for a ride for a few hours. Any attempt to explain that its a private car park is met with either rudeness or zero engagement. If they get blocked in by legitimate club members- we don’t move till a match is over, there’s more fuss. There’s got to be something odd about people who spend thousands on equipment & dress in undersized women’s foundation garments in lurid colours just to go for a bike ride. Perhaps the blood flow to the brain is restricted by the lycra? Bring back Reg Harris!

LOL! Daft nicely done! I *hope* you realize where the post was coming from though. :>

One of the reasons I believe I understand the Antismokers so well is that I used to **BE** sort of an “Antismoker” myself — except that I was, in all seriousness, an AntiDriver — just as in the persona I pictured in my post about driving age. I wrote stuff and organized and led demonstrations and believed I had “right on my side” and that getting rid of 90% or so of the cars would be “for the greater good.”

I gradually grew to realize I *had* no such right, and also saw that the Antismokers were using the very same sort of trick and techniques that we in the pro-bicycle movement had been using … except with even more disrespect for truth, freedom, and human choice. That’s why I devoted the bulk of my “Brains” book to the psychological aspects of the antismoking movement: I felt it was crucial that people understand the motivations that drive the people who are out to eradicate smokers so that they can better be fought.

I hope you realised that it was done tongue in cheek. It seems like you did.

I’m having difficulty driving at the moment, not just because I’m typing this on my Smartphone in London traffic, but because the weasel testicles (I called that cyclist a weasel – he sure looked like one, and they were pretty small) taped to my thigh is affecting my braking and clutch action. Are they supposed to be on the inside or the outside?

Thank God. I though perhaps if you kept your legs tight together so the weasel nuts didn’t drop out that might do, or perhaps stuff them up first as a sort of stopper.Of course if you ‘garter’ your weasel-husband’s nuts to your thigh close enough to the knee, that would probably work.

Daft Lassie – do be careful with cycling weasel testicles. I’m informed by a convert to the lycra way that urination while progressing is practised by hardcore adherents, male & female, due to the difficulty of removing said lycra at short notice & by continuous pedalling obsession syndrome. Now wash your hands.

All the same Venables and Thompson must have had some very dangerous ideas to do that to the little boy. When I was a lad we never thought of doing anything like that! In fact it was considered cowardly to hurt someone smaller than your self. Bullying was dealt with six strokes of the cane

I was once captured by some “big lads”. I have no idea how old I would have been, but I don’t suppose they were much more than twelve. They seemed to be re-enacting their own version of Lord of the Flies, and two of the lads kept their home-made bows trained on me and my friend while we had to kiss the feet of the “king”. It has struck me since that those bamboo arrows would have been quite capable of piercing my body if they’d let go – I think I even recognised that as fact back then or perhaps I might not have kissed the king so readily.

Just as well they hadn’t been watching Saw IV or perhaps were fans of the Freddy Krueger movie maybe. I still recall my feelings of bafflement in about 1995 when I was browsing the shelves of a toy-shop in America and there, on the hangers were “Freddy Krueger” gloves. They started ’em young over there it seemed. I decided that was one fantasy my 9 year-old didn’t need to be part of.

Two or three years ago I was in the waiting room of my “doctor’s” surgery and I asked the receptionist if I could take some photos of the posters which plaster the walls. This was for a blog post which has never been written, but the point of it was the amount of propaganda dished out by the NHS, such as making sure that children are entitled to private (secret) consultations.

I imagine that, rather than for abuse cases, which only seem to matter if they are in the past as you say (even better if the perpetrator is deceased), the entire idea is for the state to own children (consider the proposed no opt-out for “sex education”, the attempts at interviewing home-schooled children in private (secret), etc.).

As I proposed a couple of years ago, the agenda is to legalise paedophilia (or “intergenerational sex” as some of the perverts want to call it) and reducing the age of consent will undoubtedly happen, but not for the cheeeldren’s sake. so that they can be made more dysfunctional by being encouraged to have sex at ever younger ages.

Good point raised about all the young conceptions and not much being done about it , yet a clamer to look at historic sex crimes! We do need a statue if limitations for these crimes. If anything it would encourage people to report sex crimes much sooner and possibly prevent other victims by dealing with the perp sooner.

So far as can be told, Jimmy Savile had no illegitimate children, although a rumoured son and a daughter were claimed in the press; but neither wanted to be proven to carry his genes. In both cases the putative mother admitted to sexual liasons with Savile back then, but also were well over 20 years of age at the time of their births anyway. Another woman, also well over 20 at the time, did remark she had had an abortion, and she believed if she had not, then the resultant child would have been Savile’s.http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/broken-britain.html What this left me thinking was that Jimmy evidently wasn’t a hundred percent careful about his contraception methods, even though he long maintained he had no wish to be a parent; so it left me wondering about the allegations about his activity with girls who were really too young to be his women. Would girls so young be expected to be in full control of their own conceptual rights? Was Jimmy just a lot luckier in life than he appears to have been in death?

If the allegations of such profligate sexual conduct against Savile had any truth, I would have expected him to have been bright enough to have had a vasectomy, thus retaining all of the pleasure but eliminating one major risk. In that position, I certainly would. Does anyone know if he had one ?

Everybody knows teenage girls are as fertile as turtles – unfortunately for heterosexual males, we are programmed to be attracted to the most fertile females, and this didn’t used to be a problem over the course of thousands of years of evolution. Now I can’t speak for anyone else, but in the respect that young women are managing to override nature by mutating into dumb, sexless narcissists en masse it does manage to ensure we can avoid being inadvertent ‘paedos’ in this brave yew world…

“If anything it would encourage people to report sex crimes much sooner…”

Or if they were not to do so, they might at least be able to draw a line in the sand & move on with their own lives, knowing that the chance had passed. (I had one memorable discussion with a nutter who claimed to have silently carried ‘the secret of Rolf Harris’ upon her shoulders – for 37 long years! Almost certainly an internet fantasist, but if not the idea of waking up in a bad mood every morning for over 13,000 days without bothering to even post him a turd or spread gossip on the internet struck me as being so feeble as to be laughable; she wasn’t even the alleged victim so Christ knows what would have held her back.)

At the tender age of 11, I read a quote in the ‘1985 Rock Yearbook’ that would probably result in the quotee being burnt at the stake alongside Barbara Hewson if said today. Probably in reference to the BBC furores surrounding ‘Relax’, Paul Rutherford of the popular beat combo Frankie Goes To Hollywood said: ‘Kids don’t need sheltering now, they know what they want. They wanna fuck! The boys wanna fuck, the girls wanna be fucked. They do!’ Now, despite reading that then and despite loving ‘Relax’ and despite being thrust into puberty before I started secondary school, I never felt under any sort of pressure to become sexually active – and from what I can remember neither were my schoolfriends (though I must admit Razzle was a good friend to me throughout my adolescence), and we all grew into healthy-minded young adults. Contrast this with today – lewd and meaningless consumer-rap and over-hyped ’empowered’ pop tarts singing drivel that make ‘Relax’ seem like Twinkle Twinkle Little Star in comparison, consumer ‘moms’ taking their pre-pubescent offspring to Rihanna concerts where the ‘star’ mock-masturbates and thrusts, and the puritanical society sexualising children from a very early age. They all ‘fuck’, and know not why – what a paradox that back in the days of Enid Blyton childhoods, basic sex education and intelligent pop music, some young people could possess a real ‘allure’ at a fairly age, yet now all young people are sexless morons, programmed to ‘do it’ solely so the Kylie’s and Tiffany’s can spit out the next generation of Logan’s and Taylor’s, and the cycle of consuming can continue.http://retardedkingdom.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/schools-not-out.html

In fairness, I think everyone knows there is a difference between two underage teenagers shagging, and a grown adult shagging an underage teenager; I will venture most teenagers being declared Gillick competent are in the former category. It’s also not clear how many teenagers claim to have been abused after being declared Gillick competent.

One big difference is another unwanted baby. Collateral damage perhaps. The Broken Britain thing that Cameron cut his political teeth on was all about a 13 year-old dad, but it turned out his 15 year-old girlfriend had been putting it about with half a dozen other boys of her own age, with the full co-operation of Mummy.

There are – as I predicted a while back – an increasing number of ‘young men’ being prosecuted for ‘child sex abuse’ in both current and historic cases where the age difference is minimal. This is even more despicable when you factor in that the recent cases will involve “men” who are both as sexualised and infantilised as the “girls” – to misquote Aretha, “Who’s Groomin’ Who”

I can’t help wondering what the great moralisers of today, the MSM editors, CPS, police in the various operations, that rigorously apply todays morals to the past regardless of the fact they didn’t apply then, are going to do in a few years time when the moral climate changes and what they are doing today becomes morally wrong.

Are they going to hand themselves in and confess or will they protest that it doesn’t apply to them because it didn’t apply when they did it? If the latter then just why are they doing it now?

Excellent article, and just loved the “electile dysfunction” phrase!! I worry that, especially today, any discussion of “consent” will be led and directed by populism and wishes based on our lazy liberal views and a complete absence of any philosophy which seeks to discuss “Consent” within a context of morals, societal values or indeed any context wider than “I want therefore I should have”.

Point of order; if a Doctor gives contraception to an under the age of 16 girl (Or boy), even if ‘Gillick competency’ is established, might the prescribing medic be charged with the offence of aiding and abetting under age sexual intercourse?

Highly unlikely, but in the current hysterical climate an amusing possibility. I can see the rabid tabloid headlines now.

In the twisted PC/PR mind of the CPS it’s conceivable, since they thought it a jolly good idea to go after a completely innocent NHS doctor who was simply trying to put an FGM victim back together, rather than perform the cultural flesh-slicing in the first place.

Common law has failed all concerned in Rotherham, Bradford, Oxford and any number of other places still to be revealed. Despite apparent revulsion at misuse of young white girls, what have the feminazis, multicultural societies, police, social services, and CPS achieved with the common law? beyond appeasement.

For law to work, there has to be a willingness to impose it on all without fear or favour, who honestly believes this is the case in yUK?

We probablyneed a lawyer on the board but my understanding is that “Common Law” was laregely abrogated by the Human Rights Act of 1998. However, the increasing influence of “Human Rights Law” had been nibbling away at Common Law traditions for many years before that.

“”Lady Thatcher did not set out to reform the constitution. Although the 1979 Conservative Manifesto raised the possibility of a Bill of Rights nothing came of this proposal during her administration. In reality Margaret Thatcher was a traditional Conservative who believed in a strong state and had an aversion to any constitutional reform that might limit it… the Court at Strasbourg was emerging from its infancy. The Thatcher Administration never questioned the right of individual petition. And in the absence of any domestic forum in which to bring human rights claims litigants went to Strasbourg for justice. The UK soon had the worst record of any Contracting State, often for rather mudane cases. Thus Conservative plans to restore corporal punishment in schools were soon abandoned as a consequence of Strasbourg (Campbell and Cosans v UK [1982] 7511/76). Repeated British refusals to regulate telephone tapping ended with the adverse judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Malone v UK [1984] ECHR 8691/79. The Interception of Communications Act 1985 followed. Similarly, a young German fugitive by the name of Jens Soering tried to prevent his extradition to the USA on capital charges initially before the English courts and when this was unsuccessful before the European Commission and Court. The rest, as they say, is history… Finally, Margaret Thatcher appointed Lord Mackay to the Lord Chancellorship. He was the first Scot to hold that post. Lady Thatcher cannot have known, but this decision would have far reaching consequences. In making recommendations for judicial appointments Lord MacKay eschewed the usual ‘Colonels in Horsehair’, as Sir Stephen Sedley dubbed them, in favour of a constellation of intellectual stars that have moulded and developed the law in a manner that would have been unthinkable a few generations ago. Furthermore, the lifting of the ‘Kilmuir rules’ by Lord MacKay in 1987 led to judicial glasnost with judges giving lectures and very occasional interviews.”

“MacKay (a great friend of my late father) came from the Scottish Legal tradition that is fundementally different from Common Law and initiated the culturally fatal collision between the European idea of the role of the judiciary (Scot’s law is fundementally different to Common Law as it is based on the Roman traditionb) but also the Scottish idea of the role of the judiciary – for the 300 years of political Union the scottish judiciary along with the Kirk were the executive expressions of Scottish political identity. The Lord President of the Court of Session in Edinburgh was almost a subsititute PM.”http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/hra-giving-democracy-a-hammering/16985#comment-2037188137

I daresay we need a host of lawyers actually… and all on the public purse…

I could see how a woman’s strapping of weasel testicles to her thighs would work as a contaceptive, if the weasel was still attached to the testicles. Speaking from the point of view of the male of the species, placing one’s meat-and-two-veg within snapping range of an irate weasel’s teeth is something I would try to actively avoid. Hence, a lower probability of a pregnancy occurring.

Girls certainly mature earlier today, though I’m not so sure about boys – unless there’s been a sizeable bit of evolution taking place since I was at school myself. I must stress I don’t associate with schoolboys, though I often see them queuing for the bus from my window and judging by what I’ve witnessed there doesn’t appear to have been a great change in the last thirty years. Perhaps the age of consent should be raised for heterosexual males and lowered for girls? Ah, wouldn’t that put the consensual cat amongst the moral pigeons!